Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Golgotha said:
Nah man, they are terrible cost effectiveness.

You have argued successfully that the terrible cost effectiveness doesn't matter because it's industry cost that we can afford, not civilian cost but the fact remains that they are going to be running on a frame ill suited to it and the same cost applied to a different ship with better agility would get better results.

You feel that the ease of payment makes it worth it, I feel that it doesn't add enough compared to that extra potential module.

I would have been absolutely on your side of we had better maneuverability, but we don't.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Fair enough. The module slot is definitely a tradeoff.

It's interesting to me that a lot of people are saying they'd have gone for torpedoes if we'd had three impulse engines. This would have put us at C+ Cost, and maybe A+ Tactical due to the synergy between better manoeuvrability and torps? (I don't think we'd get to S, realistically.) The torpedoes would benefit from it, and we'd have an even higher tactical rating, but if you look at the Tactical/Cost scores it's A+/C+, versus A/A-.

So I think we'd have a better combatant with three egines, but also a more expensive one, whereas the two engine Galileo is more cost-effective. It feels like there's a bit of a disconnect between some players who take a "If this is not a the best warship it has no business being one." versus others looking at it as a pure cost/capability tradeoff.

Cold Dust said:
Bruh, no offense but this is getting more than a wee bit obsessive. Might be time to disengage and take a breath. It's just a Quest.

On a more serious note, are you OK ATM? Feel free to direct message or whatever this site supports if you need to.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Thanks.

Honestly I'd kinda intended to ease out of the discussion since it was clearly not being super productive, and still intend to, but people keep quoting me. :mad:

More seriously, thanks for the concern, and yeah I'm doing fine right now, about to head to bed soon actually.

thepsyborg said:
@Skippy So I had already read all that, and I decided that sure, maybe it was terrible cost effectiveness that we could by a lucky coincidence afford, but it was still terrible space effectiveness, and I'd rather not lose a module slot for it.

But you know what, clearly you care way the hell more about this than I do, and I remember my own frustration begging and pleading and explaining to everyone why the Sagarmatha needed- needed- would be BLINDINGLY IDIOTIC not to go with cruise nacelles, and how much it sucked feeling like I was just pissing into the wind. So sure. I'll vote for torps, because because given my own history of tilting at windmills you have somehow managed to trigger more sympathy from me than you have spite.


(Seriously, though, the tag-bombing? :mob:)

[X] 6 Phaser Banks, 2 Forward Torpedo Launchers
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's really kind of you, and I'm sorry if you saw the Sideshow Bob rake gif in my last post in reply to the cost-effectiveness thing. I deleted it about twenty seconds after posting because it felt snippy and non-productive, but I apologise anyway, and thanks for the sympathy. I've definitely tiled at some windmills in time too lmao.
 
Look, I know I've been absent for a lot of this argument, but where does it say that we'd lose a module slot if we put torpedoes on? I likely won't be changing my vote, but it'd be nice to know where the source of this entire line of debate was surrounding module vs. torpedoes.
 
StriderInCosmos said:
Look, I know I've been absent for a lot of this argument, but where does it say that we'd lose a module slot if we put torpedoes on? I likely won't be changing my vote, but it'd be nice to know where the source of this entire line of debate was surrounding module vs. torpedoes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This post by Sayle:
Sayle said:
Torpedoes do take a bit of space, this is true. It can be the difference between having a module available to use or not but it isn't a 1:1 map onto that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Although looking at it now, it actually says it's not a 1:1 map onto losing a module, not that it definitely will do so. Apparently I'd just missed that the time when defending the loss off the module as an acceptable cost, lmao.
 
Skippy said:
Thanks.

Honestly I'd kinda intended to ease out of the discussion since it was clearly not being super productive, and still intend to, but people keep quoting me. :mad:

More seriously, thanks for the concern, and yeah I'm doing fine right now, about to head to bed soon actually.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's ok to ignore people who quote you. If you feel the need to step out of a conversation, it's best to disengage completely no matter what other people are saying. Better to be Wrong On The Internet than to loose your cool and say something you don't want to. And not everyone expects a reply, anyways.
 
Skippy said:
So again, there is not, according to Sayle, any value whatsoever being lost. There is no "savings".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
dot dot dot
Sayle said:
So it's not like there's no downsides. It is still a choice. But if you're working from a set of priors that doesn't weight that possibility very highly then the logic makes sense.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So here's my line of reasoning:

Torpedoes requiring aiming the bow of the ship toward the enemy.

Torpedoes therefore give more bang (tactical advantage) for the buck (industry cost) on more agile ships.

This ship is not agile.

Torpedoes would be more effective on a different ship, like perhaps one we'll design in the near future, while the second or third production runs of the Galileo are still being built.

If the Galileo is D- Industry (barely above "send back to the drawing board" level), when we do design that newer, more effective torpedo platform, we will have bottlenecked ourselves, so either the Galileo or the new ship will have to be traded off against each other.

If the Galileo is C- Industry (and the new ship isn't ruinously Industry-expensive), we'll be able to produce as many of both as can be crewed, leading to a more effective fleet overall.


Where am I going wrong, here?
 
Last edited:
pedanterrific said:
Where am I going wrong, here?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Everything you have said is wrong, either contradicted explicitly by the QM of the quest, or by the mechanics of the quest.

The Infrastructure Cost has of the Galileo no bearing on its "cost" in any real sense, the number we produce, or anything else. The only scenario in which it is relevant is if we were still building the Galileo and attempting to start producing the another heavily armed capital ship at the same time... which we aren't going to do for various reasons. Essentially, the Infrastructure Cost represents the production lines we have available for weapons; not cost in an accounting sense, and is only relevant in terms of tracking whether we're trying to build too much at once. The post you quoted that line from went into this, summarising all the conclusions from asking @Sayle about it, so perhaps take a closer read.

The agility of the ship (or lack thereof) is taken into account in its Tactical Rating. The Tactical Rating is the ultimate descriptor of how good the ship is in a fight relative to its weight class, etc... Given the the Galileo with torpedoes has a Tactical Rating of "A", then it is by definition a highly capable combatant. See also the Single Target Damage Rating, which also factors in the ship's manoeuvrability and is a whopping 50% higher. Even the Multi-Target Damage Rating (also inclusive of agility) is a bit higher. Being less agile is certainly an issue when using torpedoes against smaller more agile ships, but less so against big ponderous capital ships, which there are no shortage of in this era, like the Klingon D7.
 
Last edited:
Skippy said:
Everything you have said is wrong, either contradicted explicitly by the QM of the quest, or by the mechanics of the quest.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The whole point of laying out my reasoning line by line starting from base principles was to avoid this kind of thing.

I trust that you are not actually trying to claim that, for instance, the Galileo is very agile, so I can't read this as anything but you making an ass out of yourself in an attempt to insult me.

Why do this?
Skippy said:
The Infrastructure Cost has of the Galileo no bearing on its "cost" in any real sense, the number we produce, or anything else.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
False.
Skippy said:
The only scenario in which it is relevant is if we were still building the Galileo and attempting to start producing the another heavily armed capital ship at the same time...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Exactly.
Skippy said:
which we aren't going to do for various reasons.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And this is where we actually disagree.

Why couldn't you have just started here? "Based on previous design cycles, 22XX is when I think we'll finish building all of the Galileos we will ever want, and 22XX is when I think we'll begin to build the next cruiser-weight ship, and as you can see the two dates don't overlap for X reasons."

That would have actually been very convincing! I don't have a particularly good sense for how long build cycles versus design cycles take! Instead you just resort to blanket denunciation.

Okay then.
 
So I just had a thought: people keep saying we are building a mini connie... but I'm wondering if this is gonna be a Miranda since that started as a sciance ship too.
 
We'd need some sort of mission pod, methinks, for it to seal the deal. And there's no reason a mission pod-like structure couldn't be added to later 'Flights' of Galileos. Maybe to the neck, perhaps, if there's any free space after this design.
 
StriderInCosmos said:
We'd need some sort of mission pod, methinks, for it to seal the deal. And there's no reason a mission pod-like structure couldn't be added to later 'Flights' of Galileos. Maybe to the neck, perhaps, if there's any free space after this design.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Closest 'historic' example in this era would be the Ptolemy-class tug, with its various odd/canisters that it could carry about underslung.
 
Honestly, I could see a 'lock' system on the neck and mission pods just 'clipping' on and off. Sensor pods, torpedo launchers, luxury suites for visiting delegations, extra medical facilities...

It's not going to happen, I don't think, but it's a tempting idea, nevertheless.
 
Yeah I really don't get where the "It's not a WarShip" people are coming from. We are explicitly requested to make this a Warship, because our last one was the Curiousity and As I predicted at the time of its construction, its minimal phaser-only armament made it bloody useless when we got into a war.
Again,
This ship is explicitly intended to be a Warship. We should therefore be arming it like one.
Equally the costs people are just... Have you actually looked at the thing
It's huge
even if adding torps cost a slot, which is not gaunenteed, we will still have oodles of slots.
And the argument that "it has low manuverability so it should not have torps" is contridicted by A) Actual Canon where the period we are entering is functionally characterized by low manuverability on anything that isn't tiny, and the statistics which show significant gains in its damage ratings in the places where manuverability is a factor- therefore it is extremely clear that having low manuverability does not disproportionately affect the ship's ability to shoot torpedoes at things.

I just

We are, right now, at a point in time where we do not have to compromise armament for any reason, and people are still voting to compromise the armament basically out of... Lack of reading comprehension or total misunderstanding of the situation, the external confluence of events and circumstances, which allows for this, which will not come again.
The people who are all "oh but what about some hypothetical future design" are worse, because they're making one of the classic mistakes in planning: rejecting a good plan right now for the dream of a perfect plan later.

I would like to make a cheap rank filler that can at least let a K'Tinga know they've been nudged, as the asked for combat capable craft.
 
Sayle said:
Exceedingly cool. That you went so far as to find names for all the other ships is very impressive.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I did more than that:
I theme named the tranches.
And hunted down the fonts actually used in Trek to use.

(Rays and skates have a conveniently enormous number of varieties even when I skipped the ones that are just "[Person]'s Ray" or most of the ones just named after the closest city or whatever. It's like having an Oden class, you can build literally over a hundred of the things before you have to abandon the theme naming)
 
Last edited:
pedanterrific said:
The whole point of laying out my reasoning line by line starting from base principles was to avoid this kind of thing.

I trust that you are not actually trying to claim that, for instance, the Galileo is very agile, so I can't read this as anything but you making an ass out of yourself in an attempt to insult me.

Why do this?
False.
Exactly.
And this is where we actually disagree.

Why couldn't you have just started here? "Based on previous design cycles, 22XX is when I think we'll finish building all of the Galileos we will ever want, and 22XX is when I think we'll begin to build the next cruiser-weight ship, and as you can see the two dates don't overlap for X reasons."

That would have actually been very convincing! I don't have a particularly good sense for how long build cycles versus design cycles take! Instead you just resort to blanket denunciation.

Okay then.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There were statements in your previous post which were technically incorrect based on what we know from Sayle, regarding the Infrastructure Cost and whether it has a bearing on the overall cost of the ship, how many we can produce or would cause it to go "back to the drawing board", which it does not). Apologies if my tone was a bit short, this like, the 47th iteration of this conversation for me. You are quite right on the agility, of course, and that more agile ships get a bonus with torpedoes, although I think the mechanics are important to be clear on regarding how the Gailleo's lower manoeuvrability effects its ability to use torpedoes. It's already factored into the Tactical rating, which is still excellent.

Regarding the precise dates of production runs of ships, there seems to be some variability? Based on other ships I'd say five years as a ballpark, with ten as quite a tall upper end. Crucially though, we can be confident we won't still be building Galileos by the time we're starting the ship after the next project - that would be a crazy runtime. So if we just rule out the next ship being a Thunderchild Mk. II (and we can, both from getting a look at the options for next turn and it also being an objectively poor idea) for our next project, there's no issue as the build schedules can't overlap. Honestly I don't think the ship after the next one is likely to be a dreadnought either, but in principle it could be!

Anyway, apologies for snapping at you so dismissively, that wasn't really fair and I see you were just trying to lay out your reasoning.
 
[X] 4 Phaser Banks
[X] 6 Phaser Banks

Our original request spec was a "decently armed" science ship that can moonlight as a secondary combatant. I'd rather have more space for science and engineering as we whistle the final bells. Less infrastructure cost might also make the class more attractive to member fleets, which while a secondary goal, is still something I'd consider worth weighting.
 
Or in short:
The opportunity cost is negligible to non-existent
The benefit is very high
Not taking torpedoes for this ship, at this time, is a baffling decision.


And I really, really do want to not dely torpedoes becoming standard issue again.
Because again, pretty much every single ship designer in the Trek setting, comes to the conclusion that not having torpedoes is a bad idea. For everything.

Even the freaking shuttles.
 
fishsicles said:
Our original spec was a "decently armed" science ship that can moonlight as a secondary combatant. I'd rather have more space for science and engineering as we whistle the final bells. Less infrastructure cost might also make the class more attractive to member fleets, which while a secondary goal, is still something I'd consider worth weighting.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

So I think that's unlikely as our member fleets probably won't build a Starfleet design, and if this were a design requirement or consideration for the class it would be mentioned, etc.. But I have to give you style and invention points for coming up with an argument based on the Infrastructure Cost which cannot simply be immediately falsified. It's actually... debateable.

Seventeen pages, we got there.
 
We've shown great cost restraint so far, it's time to go ham if you ask me. This is the last thing that will change the ships cost, everything else is just allocation of space.

Also the Cygnus' role wasn't "rear line combatant", it was forced into that role because it was hilariously outdated. Why are we settling for matching a ship that was deemed irrelevant a decade ago?
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top